JFK, MLK, RFK and the Continuing Unspeakable with Regard to Global Warming Denial

[Albert Doyle]

[
I would love to hear or read a cogent and exhaustive explanation as to why Chaos Theory no longer applies to climate even though it remains a non-linear, complex, dynamical system. Why is climate suddenly exempt from Chaos Theory?

I think you're trying to escape into philosophy Greg. That's a sophist diversion you're doing there. The Chaos theory is outside and secondary to the direct points I made about Global Warming above. Greg, you called my stuff "trying to sound knowledgeable" "unfounded" "gibberish". You're perfectly welcome to back that up with a reply. Is there a reason why you were unable to? It seems somewhat arrogant to challenge somebody and then think you're above having to answer.


What Greg is doing is trying to hide the sun with his hand. Meanwhile if you analyze his argument the fact Global Warming advocates may have missed that CO2 follows temperature in the natural warming cycles does not cancel all the other science involved. It doesn't exempt deniers from answering the main points as Greg does. If Greg wants to practice philosophy he should practice the philosophy of objective discussion. I suggest it might be a better route to understanding Global Warming.

[Lauren Johnson]

I would love to hear or read a cogent and exhaustive explanation as to why Chaos Theory no longer applies to climate even though it remains a non-linear, complex, dynamical system. Why is climate suddenly exempt from Chaos Theory?

Chaos theory certainly is important for the field of climatology. The very notion of a stable system making a sudden phase change to a new stable system owes much to chaos theory. My understanding of current climatology is that we are in the middle of a phase change to a new and more hostile climate caused by the sudden input of CO2 into the atmosphere.

[Greg Burnham]

I would love to hear or read a cogent and exhaustive explanation as to why Chaos Theory no longer applies to climate even though it remains a non-linear, complex, dynamical system. Why is climate suddenly exempt from Chaos Theory?

Chaos theory certainly is important for the field of climatology. The very notion of a stable system making a sudden phase change to a new stable system owes much to chaos theory. My understanding of current climatology is that we are in the middle of a phase change to a new and more hostile climate caused by the sudden input of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Chaos Theory was born out of climatology. It was discovered while scientists were, yes, attempting to predict weather. That was when they discovered that it was impossible to predict beyond a few days, maybe a week, and even then the forecasts are often wrong. Indeed, even short term weather forecasts are rarely, if ever, 100% accurate. Ask a meteorologist to predict what the weather in any city in the world will be like on November 3rd (for instance) 2013. They can't do it. They can perhaps give a "temperature range" based on the PAST history of the region, but ask them to put money on a precise prediction, such as, "Will it rain that day" and they'll balk every time.

Again, the idea that a dynamical system's "phase change" can be PREDICTED at all flies in the face of Chaos Theory, by definition. Even if we had developed a perfect set of equations to model future climate behavior (which we have yet to do) -- but, even if we had a perfect model, we would still require 100% precise mathematical values to enter into those perfect equations to properly represent exact INITIAL CONDITIONS -- otherwise the resultant outcome will be randomly flawed. Imagine the sheer volume of 100% precise data that would be necessary to enter into such equations in order to have a glimmer of possibly making an accurate prediction. It is astronomical in scope.

Last year I posted a very long list of extremely hostile climactic events that occurred prior to the increase in CO2 of recent decades. It was quite extensive...and revealing. I have seen no evidence that current climactic hostility exceeds the climactic hostility of pre-high CO2 levels.

[Albert Doyle]

Again, the idea that a dynamical system's "phase change" can be PREDICTED at all flies in the face of Chaos Theory, by definition. Even if we had developed a perfect set of equations to model future climate behavior (which we have yet to do) -- but, even if we had a perfect model, we would still require 100% precise mathematical values to enter into those perfect equations to properly represent exact INITIAL CONDITIONS -- otherwise the resultant outcome will be randomly flawed. Imagine the sheer volume of 100% precise data that would be necessary to enter into such equations in order to have a glimmer of possibly making an accurate prediction. It is astronomical in scope.

Last year I posted a very long list of extremely hostile climactic events that occurred prior to the increase in CO2 of recent decades. It was quite extensive...and revealing. I have seen no evidence that current climactic hostility exceeds the climactic hostility of pre-high CO2 levels.

That's rubbish Greg and you are trying to divert the real arguments into sophist rumination and philosophy. Your method is similar to Kennedy Assassination conspiracy deniers who insist on universal total perfection in order not to answer the obvious. You need to explain how this present CO2 rise could be the only one in Earth's history to not be accompanied by a temperature rise and why.


In my opinion Greg is not being honest because he is positing that we somehow need a perfect model to make any kind of credible prediction. But that isn't nearly true. It's a spurious argument that's being used as an excuse for the things Greg refuses to answer. The truth is that Earth is a closed system with predictable enough scientific factors that are good enough to make basic predictions. Greg ignores the fact that Global Warming prediction has already verified in the short term and is the most accurate of all predictions so far. He ignores that the ice core samples are a good enough gauge for CO2 levels and their relationship to temperature. So far he hasn't explained why they aren't.


All people need to know is that Greg can't back what he said about my input and can't answer my points. Anything else is just less than honest no matter what excuse you make for it.

[Jim Hackett II]

Since I was asked what my view is, I gotta say: I read and re-read this thread to learn about things I don't know "all about" before I read.

I am learning from the exchange of data between Mr. Burnham,
(a close friend and veteran of many internet exchanges respectful and teaching and empowering as well as sometimes disagreeing)
and Ms Dawn Meredith
(whom I do not know as long or as well as I know Monk) but I consider an important addition to my own information database as a very valuable contributor).
I pay attention to these good folks of demonstrated intent when they speak.

I must keep my mouth shut to be able to hear what the others are saying.
Both involved have valid views of events and I am still open to do my own thinking.
I try to maintain that attitude to enable learning
and change of my own ideas when data makes that change impossible to deny.

I read and await further input of meaningful data to help me decide what I think about the issues.

[Albert Doyle]

Since I was asked what my view is, I gotta say: I read and re-read this thread to learn about things I don't know "all about" before I read.

I am learning from the exchange of data between Mr. Burnham,
(a close friend and veteran of many internet exchanges respectful and teaching and empowering as well as sometimes disagreeing)
and Ms Dawn Meredith (whom I do not know as long or as well as I know Monk) but I consider an important addition to my own information database as a very valuable contributor).
I pay attention to these good folks of demonstrated intent when they speak.

I must keep my mouth shut to be able to hear what the others are saying.
Both involved have valid views of events and I am still open to do my own thinking.
I try to maintain that attitude to enable learning
and change of my own ideas when data makes that change impossible to deny.

I read and await further input of meaningful data to help me decide what I think about the issues.

No Mr Hackett. You were specifically asked to back your view via my points.


I think most honest people could see you couldn't do that besides appealing to hiding behind the protection of groups which is kind of intellectually cowardly isn't it? Honest debaters can back their points on their own Jim. You couldn't. Thanks.

[Greg Burnham]

Again, the idea that a dynamical system's "phase change" can be PREDICTED at all flies in the face of Chaos Theory, by definition. Even if we had developed a perfect set of equations to model future climate behavior (which we have yet to do) -- but, even if we had a perfect model, we would still require 100% precise mathematical values to enter into those perfect equations to properly represent exact INITIAL CONDITIONS -- otherwise the resultant outcome will be randomly flawed. Imagine the sheer volume of 100% precise data that would be necessary to enter into such equations in order to have a glimmer of possibly making an accurate prediction. It is astronomical in scope.

Last year I posted a very long list of extremely hostile climactic events that occurred prior to the increase in CO2 of recent decades. It was quite extensive...and revealing. I have seen no evidence that current climactic hostility exceeds the climactic hostility of pre-high CO2 levels.

That's rubbish Greg and you are trying to divert the real arguments into sophist rumination and philosophy. Your method is similar to Kennedy Assassination conspiracy deniers who insist on universal total perfection in order not to answer the obvious. You need to explain how this present CO2 rise could be the only one in Earth's history to not be accompanied by a temperature rise and why.


Greg is dishonest because he is positing that we somehow need a perfect model to make any kind of credible prediction. But that isn't nearly true. It's a spurious argument that's being used as an excuse for the things Greg refuses to answer. The truth is that Earth is a closed system with predictable enough scientific factors that are good enough to make basic predictions. Greg ignores the fact that Global Warming prediction has already verified in the short term and is the most accurate of all predictions so far. He ignores that the ice core samples are a good enough gauge for CO2 levels and their relationship to temperature. So far he hasn't explained why they aren't.


All people need to know is that Greg can't back what he said about my input and can't answer my points. Anything else is just dishonesty no matter what excuse you make for it.

Albert --

I should have chosen my words more carefully when I suggested that you were attempting to make yourself appear knowledgeable. That is obviously not the case. My apology. I am free to criticize your post and label it gibberish, as that is my opinion. I have not attacked you personally. I suggest you edit your posts and remove the ad homs, particularly those that speak to my integrity.

I further suggest that you remove your implication that Jim is somehow less than a real man. There is no need to get personally insulting.

[Albert Doyle]

Albert --

I should have chosen my words more carefully when I suggested that you were attempting to make yourself appear knowledgeable. That is obviously not the case. My apology. I am free to criticize your post and label it gibberish, as that is my opinion. I have not attacked you personally. I suggest you edit your posts and remove the ad homs, particularly those that speak to my integrity.

Ah, weren't you the one who engaged in an outright witch hunt against me of much worse offense?


By the way, you still haven't answered my points.

[Greg Burnham]

Albert --

I should have chosen my words more carefully when I suggested that you were attempting to make yourself appear knowledgeable. That is obviously not the case. My apology. I am free to criticize your post and label it gibberish, as that is my opinion. I have not attacked you personally. I suggest you edit your posts and remove the ad homs, particularly those that speak to my integrity.

Ah, weren't you the one who engaged in an outright witch hunt against me of much worse offense?


By the way, you still haven't answered my points.

I am still unconvinced of who you are--but, I am willing to move on from that. If you want to have a knock down drag out fight you will have to wage it elsewhere because the owners of DPF are having none of it. A pity.

[Albert Doyle]

I am still unconvinced of who you are--but, I am willing to move on from that. If you want to have a knock down drag out fight you will have to wage it elsewhere because the owners of DPF are having none of it. A pity.

No, just a simple answer that you still haven't provided. May I suggest that the value of DPF is best judged by its pursuit of objective truth via good arguments?